Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 701 | control, N = 351 | treatment, N = 351 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 70 | 50.92 ± 12.67 (25 - 74) | 50.48 ± 13.41 (25 - 74) | 51.36 ± 12.06 (31 - 72) | 0.775 |
gender | 70 | 0.794 | |||
f | 49 (70%) | 24 (69%) | 25 (71%) | ||
m | 21 (30%) | 11 (31%) | 10 (29%) | ||
occupation | 70 | 0.936 | |||
day_training | 1 (1.4%) | 1 (2.9%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 6 (8.6%) | 4 (11%) | 2 (5.7%) | ||
homemaker | 6 (8.6%) | 3 (8.6%) | 3 (8.6%) | ||
other | 2 (2.9%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (5.7%) | ||
part_time | 13 (19%) | 6 (17%) | 7 (20%) | ||
retired | 15 (21%) | 7 (20%) | 8 (23%) | ||
self_employ | 2 (2.9%) | 1 (2.9%) | 1 (2.9%) | ||
student | 1 (1.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.9%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (2.9%) | 1 (2.9%) | 1 (2.9%) | ||
unemploy | 22 (31%) | 12 (34%) | 10 (29%) | ||
marital | 70 | 0.924 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (1.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.9%) | ||
divore | 8 (11%) | 5 (14%) | 3 (8.6%) | ||
married | 15 (21%) | 7 (20%) | 8 (23%) | ||
none | 40 (57%) | 20 (57%) | 20 (57%) | ||
seperation | 3 (4.3%) | 2 (5.7%) | 1 (2.9%) | ||
widow | 3 (4.3%) | 1 (2.9%) | 2 (5.7%) | ||
edu | 70 | 0.992 | |||
bachelor | 20 (29%) | 9 (26%) | 11 (31%) | ||
diploma | 12 (17%) | 7 (20%) | 5 (14%) | ||
hd_ad | 3 (4.3%) | 2 (5.7%) | 1 (2.9%) | ||
postgraduate | 6 (8.6%) | 3 (8.6%) | 3 (8.6%) | ||
primary | 5 (7.1%) | 2 (5.7%) | 3 (8.6%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 7 (10%) | 3 (8.6%) | 4 (11%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 15 (21%) | 8 (23%) | 7 (20%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 2 (2.9%) | 1 (2.9%) | 1 (2.9%) | ||
fam_income | 70 | 0.918 | |||
10001_12000 | 4 (5.7%) | 1 (2.9%) | 3 (8.6%) | ||
12001_14000 | 4 (5.7%) | 2 (5.7%) | 2 (5.7%) | ||
14001_16000 | 5 (7.1%) | 2 (5.7%) | 3 (8.6%) | ||
16001_18000 | 2 (2.9%) | 1 (2.9%) | 1 (2.9%) | ||
18001_20000 | 4 (5.7%) | 3 (8.6%) | 1 (2.9%) | ||
20001_above | 10 (14%) | 6 (17%) | 4 (11%) | ||
2001_4000 | 9 (13%) | 6 (17%) | 3 (8.6%) | ||
4001_6000 | 10 (14%) | 4 (11%) | 6 (17%) | ||
6001_8000 | 7 (10%) | 4 (11%) | 3 (8.6%) | ||
8001_10000 | 6 (8.6%) | 2 (5.7%) | 4 (11%) | ||
below_2000 | 9 (13%) | 4 (11%) | 5 (14%) | ||
medication | 70 | 60 (86%) | 31 (89%) | 29 (83%) | 0.495 |
onset_duration | 70 | 15.38 ± 11.60 (0 - 56) | 16.98 ± 12.86 (1 - 56) | 13.78 ± 10.13 (0 - 35) | 0.251 |
onset_age | 70 | 35.53 ± 13.88 (14 - 64) | 33.50 ± 12.73 (14 - 58) | 37.57 ± 14.86 (15 - 64) | 0.222 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 701 | control, N = 351 | treatment, N = 351 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 70 | 3.14 ± 1.24 (1 - 5) | 3.14 ± 1.29 (1 - 5) | 3.14 ± 1.22 (1 - 5) | >0.999 |
recovery_stage_b | 70 | 17.99 ± 2.63 (9 - 23) | 17.86 ± 2.70 (9 - 23) | 18.11 ± 2.59 (13 - 23) | 0.686 |
ras_confidence | 70 | 30.44 ± 4.78 (19 - 43) | 29.71 ± 4.23 (19 - 40) | 31.17 ± 5.24 (20 - 43) | 0.205 |
ras_willingness | 70 | 12.07 ± 1.95 (7 - 15) | 11.94 ± 1.89 (9 - 15) | 12.20 ± 2.03 (7 - 15) | 0.585 |
ras_goal | 70 | 17.59 ± 2.98 (12 - 24) | 17.51 ± 3.00 (12 - 24) | 17.66 ± 3.00 (12 - 24) | 0.843 |
ras_reliance | 70 | 13.20 ± 2.84 (8 - 20) | 12.89 ± 2.60 (8 - 18) | 13.51 ± 3.06 (8 - 20) | 0.358 |
ras_domination | 70 | 10.01 ± 2.16 (3 - 15) | 10.43 ± 1.96 (6 - 15) | 9.60 ± 2.30 (3 - 14) | 0.110 |
symptom | 70 | 30.06 ± 9.95 (14 - 56) | 31.00 ± 9.76 (14 - 52) | 29.11 ± 10.19 (15 - 56) | 0.432 |
slof_work | 70 | 22.53 ± 4.85 (10 - 30) | 22.51 ± 4.43 (15 - 30) | 22.54 ± 5.30 (10 - 30) | 0.981 |
slof_relationship | 70 | 25.77 ± 6.02 (11 - 35) | 25.37 ± 6.28 (13 - 35) | 26.17 ± 5.81 (11 - 35) | 0.582 |
satisfaction | 70 | 20.81 ± 6.89 (5 - 32) | 19.26 ± 6.62 (5 - 29) | 22.37 ± 6.90 (5 - 32) | 0.058 |
mhc_emotional | 70 | 11.33 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 10.89 ± 3.42 (3 - 17) | 11.77 ± 4.19 (4 - 18) | 0.336 |
mhc_social | 70 | 15.11 ± 5.50 (6 - 30) | 15.37 ± 5.56 (7 - 30) | 14.86 ± 5.51 (6 - 26) | 0.699 |
mhc_psychological | 70 | 22.39 ± 6.11 (6 - 36) | 21.94 ± 5.79 (10 - 36) | 22.83 ± 6.47 (6 - 36) | 0.548 |
resilisnce | 70 | 16.63 ± 4.53 (6 - 27) | 16.26 ± 4.37 (6 - 24) | 17.00 ± 4.72 (7 - 27) | 0.496 |
social_provision | 70 | 13.71 ± 2.94 (5 - 20) | 13.26 ± 2.56 (8 - 20) | 14.17 ± 3.25 (5 - 20) | 0.195 |
els_value_living | 70 | 17.33 ± 2.95 (5 - 25) | 16.66 ± 2.38 (12 - 22) | 18.00 ± 3.33 (5 - 25) | 0.056 |
els_life_fulfill | 70 | 12.90 ± 3.27 (4 - 20) | 11.89 ± 3.05 (5 - 17) | 13.91 ± 3.21 (4 - 20) | 0.008 |
els | 70 | 30.23 ± 5.57 (9 - 45) | 28.54 ± 4.45 (20 - 36) | 31.91 ± 6.12 (9 - 45) | 0.010 |
social_connect | 70 | 26.76 ± 9.31 (8 - 48) | 27.74 ± 8.25 (8 - 45) | 25.77 ± 10.28 (8 - 48) | 0.380 |
shs_agency | 70 | 14.59 ± 4.93 (3 - 24) | 13.89 ± 4.64 (3 - 21) | 15.29 ± 5.18 (3 - 24) | 0.238 |
shs_pathway | 70 | 16.70 ± 3.95 (4 - 24) | 16.23 ± 3.85 (8 - 24) | 17.17 ± 4.04 (4 - 23) | 0.321 |
shs | 70 | 31.29 ± 8.40 (7 - 47) | 30.11 ± 8.13 (13 - 45) | 32.46 ± 8.62 (7 - 47) | 0.246 |
esteem | 70 | 12.70 ± 1.49 (10 - 18) | 12.86 ± 1.57 (10 - 18) | 12.54 ± 1.40 (10 - 16) | 0.381 |
mlq_search | 70 | 14.91 ± 3.38 (3 - 21) | 14.80 ± 3.17 (6 - 21) | 15.03 ± 3.63 (3 - 21) | 0.780 |
mlq_presence | 70 | 13.60 ± 4.13 (3 - 21) | 13.51 ± 3.57 (5 - 20) | 13.69 ± 4.67 (3 - 21) | 0.864 |
mlq | 70 | 28.51 ± 6.71 (6 - 42) | 28.31 ± 5.95 (12 - 40) | 28.71 ± 7.47 (6 - 42) | 0.805 |
empower | 70 | 19.60 ± 4.12 (6 - 28) | 19.11 ± 3.82 (11 - 24) | 20.09 ± 4.41 (6 - 28) | 0.328 |
ismi_resistance | 70 | 14.60 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 14.31 ± 2.27 (11 - 19) | 14.89 ± 3.08 (5 - 20) | 0.380 |
ismi_discrimation | 70 | 11.33 ± 3.24 (5 - 19) | 12.26 ± 2.86 (5 - 18) | 10.40 ± 3.37 (5 - 19) | 0.015 |
sss_affective | 70 | 10.00 ± 3.87 (3 - 18) | 10.57 ± 3.49 (3 - 18) | 9.43 ± 4.19 (3 - 18) | 0.219 |
sss_behavior | 70 | 9.70 ± 3.99 (3 - 18) | 10.49 ± 3.97 (3 - 18) | 8.91 ± 3.92 (3 - 18) | 0.100 |
sss_cognitive | 70 | 8.27 ± 4.01 (3 - 18) | 8.66 ± 4.26 (3 - 18) | 7.89 ± 3.77 (3 - 18) | 0.425 |
sss | 70 | 27.97 ± 11.03 (9 - 54) | 29.71 ± 10.56 (9 - 54) | 26.23 ± 11.36 (9 - 54) | 0.188 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.14 | 0.207 | 2.74, 3.55 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.000 | 0.293 | -0.574, 0.574 | 1.00 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.137 | 0.291 | -0.434, 0.708 | 0.641 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.205 | 0.416 | -0.611, 1.02 | 0.625 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.454 | 17.0, 18.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.257 | 0.642 | -1.00, 1.52 | 0.690 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.333 | 0.608 | -1.52, 0.858 | 0.586 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.810 | 0.868 | -0.892, 2.51 | 0.355 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 0.847 | 28.1, 31.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.46 | 1.198 | -0.890, 3.80 | 0.227 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.367 | 0.818 | -1.24, 1.97 | 0.656 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.186 | 1.171 | -2.11, 2.48 | 0.875 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.9 | 0.337 | 11.3, 12.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.257 | 0.477 | -0.677, 1.19 | 0.591 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.638 | 0.321 | -1.27, -0.009 | 0.053 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.497 | 0.459 | -0.403, 1.40 | 0.285 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.5 | 0.529 | 16.5, 18.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.143 | 0.748 | -1.32, 1.61 | 0.849 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.922 | 0.552 | -2.00, 0.161 | 0.102 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.49 | 0.790 | -0.057, 3.04 | 0.065 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 12.9 | 0.465 | 12.0, 13.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.629 | 0.658 | -0.661, 1.92 | 0.342 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.473 | 0.409 | -0.328, 1.27 | 0.253 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.579 | 0.585 | -0.568, 1.73 | 0.328 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.041 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.363 | 9.72, 11.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.829 | 0.513 | -1.83, 0.177 | 0.110 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.579 | 0.463 | -1.49, 0.328 | 0.217 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.31 | 0.662 | 0.008, 2.60 | 0.054 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.028 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 31.0 | 1.681 | 27.7, 34.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.89 | 2.378 | -6.55, 2.77 | 0.430 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.105 | 1.186 | -2.22, 2.43 | 0.930 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.737 | 1.698 | -4.07, 2.59 | 0.667 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.5 | 0.827 | 20.9, 24.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.029 | 1.170 | -2.26, 2.32 | 0.981 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.695 | 0.619 | -1.91, 0.517 | 0.268 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.562 | 0.886 | -2.30, 1.17 | 0.529 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 25.4 | 1.008 | 23.4, 27.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.800 | 1.426 | -1.99, 3.59 | 0.576 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.02 | 0.900 | -2.79, 0.743 | 0.263 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.561 | 1.288 | -1.96, 3.09 | 0.666 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.3 | 1.182 | 16.9, 21.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 3.11 | 1.672 | -0.162, 6.39 | 0.066 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.733 | 1.187 | -1.59, 3.06 | 0.540 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.26 | 1.699 | -4.59, 2.07 | 0.462 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.037 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.9 | 0.640 | 9.63, 12.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.886 | 0.905 | -0.888, 2.66 | 0.331 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.446 | 0.542 | -0.615, 1.51 | 0.415 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.14 | 0.775 | -2.66, 0.378 | 0.149 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.4 | 0.963 | 13.5, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.514 | 1.362 | -3.18, 2.16 | 0.707 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.03 | 0.907 | -0.750, 2.80 | 0.264 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.56 | 1.298 | -4.11, 0.980 | 0.235 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.9 | 1.086 | 19.8, 24.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.886 | 1.536 | -2.12, 3.90 | 0.566 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.594 | 1.026 | -1.42, 2.61 | 0.566 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.66 | 1.469 | -4.54, 1.22 | 0.264 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.3 | 0.730 | 14.8, 17.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.743 | 1.032 | -1.28, 2.77 | 0.474 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.182 | 0.720 | -1.23, 1.59 | 0.802 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.319 | 1.030 | -1.70, 2.34 | 0.758 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.507 | 12.3, 14.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.914 | 0.717 | -0.490, 2.32 | 0.205 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.922 | 0.556 | -2.01, 0.169 | 0.104 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.844 | 0.796 | -0.716, 2.40 | 0.294 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.050 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.7 | 0.494 | 15.7, 17.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.34 | 0.699 | -0.028, 2.71 | 0.058 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.273 | 0.450 | -0.610, 1.16 | 0.547 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.221 | 0.645 | -1.48, 1.04 | 0.733 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.046 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 11.9 | 0.514 | 10.9, 12.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.03 | 0.727 | 0.603, 3.45 | 0.007 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.899 | 0.487 | -0.055, 1.85 | 0.072 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.928 | 0.697 | -2.29, 0.437 | 0.190 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.081 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.5 | 0.902 | 26.8, 30.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 3.37 | 1.276 | 0.871, 5.87 | 0.010 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.15 | 0.770 | -0.359, 2.66 | 0.143 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.11 | 1.102 | -3.27, 1.05 | 0.319 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.077 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.7 | 1.576 | 24.7, 30.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.97 | 2.229 | -6.34, 2.40 | 0.379 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.785 | 1.142 | -1.45, 3.02 | 0.496 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.887 | 1.635 | -4.09, 2.32 | 0.590 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.9 | 0.834 | 12.3, 15.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.40 | 1.180 | -0.912, 3.71 | 0.239 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.278 | 0.774 | -1.24, 1.79 | 0.721 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.408 | 1.107 | -1.76, 2.58 | 0.715 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 16.2 | 0.665 | 14.9, 17.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.943 | 0.940 | -0.899, 2.78 | 0.319 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.343 | 0.590 | -0.814, 1.50 | 0.564 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.402 | 0.845 | -2.06, 1.25 | 0.637 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 30.1 | 1.410 | 27.4, 32.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.34 | 1.994 | -1.57, 6.25 | 0.244 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.624 | 1.235 | -1.80, 3.04 | 0.616 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.020 | 1.768 | -3.44, 3.48 | 0.991 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.9 | 0.237 | 12.4, 13.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.314 | 0.335 | -0.971, 0.342 | 0.350 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.158 | 0.351 | -0.531, 0.846 | 0.656 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.120 | 0.501 | -0.863, 1.10 | 0.812 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.8 | 0.579 | 13.7, 15.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.229 | 0.819 | -1.38, 1.83 | 0.781 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.382 | 0.669 | -1.69, 0.930 | 0.571 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.348 | 0.957 | -1.53, 2.22 | 0.718 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.5 | 0.685 | 12.2, 14.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.171 | 0.968 | -1.73, 2.07 | 0.860 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.123 | 0.736 | -1.57, 1.32 | 0.869 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.193 | 1.053 | -1.87, 2.26 | 0.855 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.3 | 1.150 | 26.1, 30.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.400 | 1.626 | -2.79, 3.59 | 0.806 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.511 | 1.264 | -2.99, 1.97 | 0.688 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.539 | 1.808 | -3.00, 4.08 | 0.767 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.1 | 0.679 | 17.8, 20.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.971 | 0.960 | -0.911, 2.85 | 0.315 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.261 | 0.582 | -1.40, 0.880 | 0.656 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.441 | 0.833 | -2.07, 1.19 | 0.599 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.3 | 0.430 | 13.5, 15.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.571 | 0.607 | -0.619, 1.76 | 0.349 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.173 | 0.557 | -0.919, 1.27 | 0.757 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.302 | 0.796 | -1.86, 1.26 | 0.706 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.3 | 0.538 | 11.2, 13.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.86 | 0.761 | -3.35, -0.366 | 0.017 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.518 | 0.502 | -1.50, 0.467 | 0.309 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.931 | 0.719 | -0.479, 2.34 | 0.203 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.059 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.631 | 9.33, 11.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.14 | 0.892 | -2.89, 0.606 | 0.204 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.202 | 0.506 | -0.790, 1.19 | 0.692 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.06 | 0.725 | -2.48, 0.359 | 0.151 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.046 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.5 | 0.639 | 9.23, 11.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.57 | 0.904 | -3.34, 0.201 | 0.086 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.310 | 0.619 | -1.52, 0.903 | 0.619 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.417 | 0.886 | -2.15, 1.32 | 0.640 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.054 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.66 | 0.663 | 7.36, 9.96 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.771 | 0.938 | -2.61, 1.07 | 0.413 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.02 | 0.510 | 0.021, 2.02 | 0.052 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.80 | 0.730 | -3.23, -0.369 | 0.018 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.043 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 1.800 | 26.2, 33.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -3.49 | 2.546 | -8.48, 1.50 | 0.175 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.02 | 1.304 | -1.54, 3.57 | 0.439 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.32 | 1.867 | -6.98, 0.341 | 0.083 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.052 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.35) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.14 (95% CI [2.74, 3.55], t(103) = 15.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 5.32e-15, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.57], t(103) = 1.82e-14, p > .999; Std. beta = -5.72e-16, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.71], t(103) = 0.47, p = 0.639; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.58])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.02], t(103) = 0.49, p = 0.623; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.84])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.86 (95% CI [16.97, 18.75], t(103) = 39.31, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-1.00, 1.52], t(103) = 0.40, p = 0.689; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.52, 0.86], t(103) = -0.55, p = 0.584; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-0.89, 2.51], t(103) = 0.93, p = 0.351; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.94])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.71 (95% CI [28.05, 31.37], t(103) = 35.09, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.46, 95% CI [-0.89, 3.80], t(103) = 1.22, p = 0.224; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.76])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.97], t(103) = 0.45, p = 0.654; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-2.11, 2.48], t(103) = 0.16, p = 0.874; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.94 (95% CI [11.28, 12.60], t(103) = 35.43, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.19], t(103) = 0.54, p = 0.590; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.60])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.27, -8.63e-03], t(103) = -1.99, p = 0.047; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.63, -4.32e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.40], t(103) = 1.08, p = 0.279; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.70])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.51 (95% CI [16.48, 18.55], t(103) = 33.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.32, 1.61], t(103) = 0.19, p = 0.849; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-2.00, 0.16], t(103) = -1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.49, 95% CI [-0.06, 3.04], t(103) = 1.89, p = 0.059; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.96])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.89 (95% CI [11.97, 13.80], t(103) = 27.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.66, 1.92], t(103) = 0.96, p = 0.339; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.67])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.27], t(103) = 1.16, p = 0.247; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.73], t(103) = 0.99, p = 0.323; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.49) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.43 (95% CI [9.72, 11.14], t(103) = 28.74, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-1.83, 0.18], t(103) = -1.61, p = 0.106; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.08])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.49, 0.33], t(103) = -1.25, p = 0.211; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.31, 95% CI [8.09e-03, 2.60], t(103) = 1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = 0.61, 95% CI [3.77e-03, 1.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.00 (95% CI [27.70, 34.30], t(103) = 18.44, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.89, 95% CI [-6.55, 2.77], t(103) = -0.79, p = 0.428; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.28])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-2.22, 2.43], t(103) = 0.09, p = 0.929; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.74, 95% CI [-4.07, 2.59], t(103) = -0.43, p = 0.664; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.51 (95% CI [20.89, 24.14], t(103) = 27.22, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-2.26, 2.32], t(103) = 0.02, p = 0.981; Std. beta = 5.82e-03, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-1.91, 0.52], t(103) = -1.12, p = 0.261; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-2.30, 1.17], t(103) = -0.63, p = 0.526; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.37 (95% CI [23.40, 27.35], t(103) = 25.17, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-1.99, 3.59], t(103) = 0.56, p = 0.575; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.61])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.02, 95% CI [-2.79, 0.74], t(103) = -1.13, p = 0.257; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-1.96, 3.09], t(103) = 0.44, p = 0.663; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.26 (95% CI [16.94, 21.57], t(103) = 16.29, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.11, 95% CI [-0.16, 6.39], t(103) = 1.86, p = 0.062; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.90])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-1.59, 3.06], t(103) = 0.62, p = 0.537; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.26, 95% CI [-4.59, 2.07], t(103) = -0.74, p = 0.458; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.43e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.89 (95% CI [9.63, 12.14], t(103) = 17.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.89, 2.66], t(103) = 0.98, p = 0.328; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.72])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.51], t(103) = 0.82, p = 0.410; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.14, 95% CI [-2.66, 0.38], t(103) = -1.47, p = 0.141; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.37 (95% CI [13.48, 17.26], t(103) = 15.96, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-3.18, 2.16], t(103) = -0.38, p = 0.706; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.75, 2.80], t(103) = 1.13, p = 0.257; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.50])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.56, 95% CI [-4.11, 0.98], t(103) = -1.21, p = 0.228; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.67e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.94 (95% CI [19.81, 24.07], t(103) = 20.21, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-2.12, 3.90], t(103) = 0.58, p = 0.564; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.61])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.61], t(103) = 0.58, p = 0.563; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.66, 95% CI [-4.54, 1.22], t(103) = -1.13, p = 0.258; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.26 (95% CI [14.83, 17.69], t(103) = 22.28, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-1.28, 2.77], t(103) = 0.72, p = 0.472; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.64])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.23, 1.59], t(103) = 0.25, p = 0.801; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.70, 2.34], t(103) = 0.31, p = 0.757; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.55])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.26 (95% CI [12.26, 14.25], t(103) = 26.16, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.49, 2.32], t(103) = 1.28, p = 0.202; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.75])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-2.01, 0.17], t(103) = -1.66, p = 0.098; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.72, 2.40], t(103) = 1.06, p = 0.289; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.78])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.66 (95% CI [15.69, 17.63], t(103) = 33.69, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.34, 95% CI [-0.03, 2.71], t(103) = 1.92, p = 0.055; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-9.25e-03, 0.90])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.16], t(103) = 0.61, p = 0.544; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.48, 1.04], t(103) = -0.34, p = 0.732; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.89 (95% CI [10.88, 12.89], t(103) = 23.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.03, 95% CI [0.60, 3.45], t(103) = 2.79, p = 0.005; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [0.19, 1.10])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.85], t(103) = 1.85, p = 0.065; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.59])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-2.29, 0.44], t(103) = -1.33, p = 0.183; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.14])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.54 (95% CI [26.77, 30.31], t(103) = 31.64, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.37, 95% CI [0.87, 5.87], t(103) = 2.64, p = 0.008; Std. beta = 0.61, 95% CI [0.16, 1.06])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.15, 95% CI [-0.36, 2.66], t(103) = 1.49, p = 0.135; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.48])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.11, 95% CI [-3.27, 1.05], t(103) = -1.01, p = 0.313; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.74 (95% CI [24.65, 30.83], t(103) = 17.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.97, 95% CI [-6.34, 2.40], t(103) = -0.88, p = 0.376; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-1.45, 3.02], t(103) = 0.69, p = 0.492; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.89, 95% CI [-4.09, 2.32], t(103) = -0.54, p = 0.587; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.89 (95% CI [12.25, 15.52], t(103) = 16.65, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.40, 95% CI [-0.91, 3.71], t(103) = 1.19, p = 0.235; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.76])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.79], t(103) = 0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-1.76, 2.58], t(103) = 0.37, p = 0.713; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.52])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.23 (95% CI [14.93, 17.53], t(103) = 24.42, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.90, 2.78], t(103) = 1.00, p = 0.316; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.72])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.50], t(103) = 0.58, p = 0.561; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-2.06, 1.25], t(103) = -0.48, p = 0.635; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.11 (95% CI [27.35, 32.88], t(103) = 21.35, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.34, 95% CI [-1.57, 6.25], t(103) = 1.17, p = 0.240; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.76])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-1.80, 3.04], t(103) = 0.51, p = 0.614; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-3.44, 3.48], t(103) = 0.01, p = 0.991; Std. beta = 2.41e-03, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.26) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.86 (95% CI [12.39, 13.32], t(103) = 54.30, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.97, 0.34], t(103) = -0.94, p = 0.348; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.85], t(103) = 0.45, p = 0.654; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.61])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.86, 1.10], t(103) = 0.24, p = 0.811; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.80])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.18e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.80 (95% CI [13.67, 15.93], t(103) = 25.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-1.38, 1.83], t(103) = 0.28, p = 0.780; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.93], t(103) = -0.57, p = 0.568; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.53, 2.22], t(103) = 0.36, p = 0.716; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.65])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.51 (95% CI [12.17, 14.86], t(103) = 19.74, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.73, 2.07], t(103) = 0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.57, 1.32], t(103) = -0.17, p = 0.868; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-1.87, 2.26], t(103) = 0.18, p = 0.855; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.60e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.31 (95% CI [26.06, 30.57], t(103) = 24.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-2.79, 3.59], t(103) = 0.25, p = 0.806; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-2.99, 1.97], t(103) = -0.40, p = 0.686; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-3.00, 4.08], t(103) = 0.30, p = 0.765; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.11 (95% CI [17.78, 20.45], t(103) = 28.15, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.91, 2.85], t(103) = 1.01, p = 0.312; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.40, 0.88], t(103) = -0.45, p = 0.654; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-2.07, 1.19], t(103) = -0.53, p = 0.596; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.46) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.31 (95% CI [13.47, 15.16], t(103) = 33.32, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.76], t(103) = 0.94, p = 0.347; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.70])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.92, 1.27], t(103) = 0.31, p = 0.756; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.50])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.86, 1.26], t(103) = -0.38, p = 0.704; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.26 (95% CI [11.20, 13.31], t(103) = 22.79, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.86, 95% CI [-3.35, -0.37], t(103) = -2.44, p = 0.015; Std. beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.04, -0.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.50, 0.47], t(103) = -1.03, p = 0.303; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.48, 2.34], t(103) = 1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.72])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.57 (95% CI [9.33, 11.81], t(103) = 16.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.14, 95% CI [-2.89, 0.61], t(103) = -1.28, p = 0.200; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.16])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.19], t(103) = 0.40, p = 0.690; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-2.48, 0.36], t(103) = -1.46, p = 0.143; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.49 (95% CI [9.23, 11.74], t(103) = 16.40, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.57, 95% CI [-3.34, 0.20], t(103) = -1.74, p = 0.082; Std. beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.05])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.52, 0.90], t(103) = -0.50, p = 0.617; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-2.15, 1.32], t(103) = -0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.66 (95% CI [7.36, 9.96], t(103) = 13.06, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.77, 95% CI [-2.61, 1.07], t(103) = -0.82, p = 0.411; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [0.02, 2.02], t(103) = 2.00, p = 0.045; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [5.49e-03, 0.52])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.80, 95% CI [-3.23, -0.37], t(103) = -2.46, p = 0.014; Std. beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-0.83, -0.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.71 (95% CI [26.19, 33.24], t(103) = 16.50, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.49, 95% CI [-8.48, 1.50], t(103) = -1.37, p = 0.171; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-1.54, 3.57], t(103) = 0.78, p = 0.435; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.32, 95% CI [-6.98, 0.34], t(103) = -1.78, p = 0.076; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 352.209 | 360.283 | -173.105 | 346.209 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 356.578 | 372.726 | -172.289 | 344.578 | 1.631 | 3 | 0.652 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 521.108 | 529.182 | -257.554 | 515.108 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 525.375 | 541.523 | -256.688 | 513.375 | 1.733 | 3 | 0.630 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 636.943 | 645.018 | -315.472 | 630.943 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 640.519 | 656.667 | -314.260 | 628.519 | 2.424 | 3 | 0.489 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 437.545 | 445.619 | -215.772 | 431.545 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 438.705 | 454.853 | -213.352 | 426.705 | 4.840 | 3 | 0.184 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 541.806 | 549.880 | -267.903 | 535.806 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 543.242 | 559.390 | -265.621 | 531.242 | 4.564 | 3 | 0.207 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 506.247 | 514.321 | -250.124 | 500.247 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 503.202 | 519.350 | -245.601 | 491.202 | 9.046 | 3 | 0.029 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 472.423 | 480.497 | -233.212 | 466.423 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 473.741 | 489.889 | -230.870 | 461.741 | 4.683 | 3 | 0.197 |
symptom | null | 3 | 762.409 | 770.483 | -378.204 | 756.409 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 767.281 | 783.429 | -377.640 | 755.281 | 1.128 | 3 | 0.770 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 616.032 | 624.106 | -305.016 | 610.032 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 616.941 | 633.089 | -302.471 | 604.941 | 5.091 | 3 | 0.165 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 669.008 | 677.082 | -331.504 | 663.008 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 672.937 | 689.085 | -330.468 | 660.937 | 2.072 | 3 | 0.558 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 713.450 | 721.524 | -353.725 | 707.450 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 715.877 | 732.025 | -351.939 | 703.877 | 3.573 | 3 | 0.311 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 566.714 | 574.788 | -280.357 | 560.714 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 570.014 | 586.162 | -279.007 | 558.014 | 2.699 | 3 | 0.440 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 663.025 | 671.099 | -328.513 | 657.025 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 666.788 | 682.936 | -327.394 | 654.788 | 2.237 | 3 | 0.525 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 688.665 | 696.739 | -341.333 | 682.665 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 693.182 | 709.330 | -340.591 | 681.182 | 1.483 | 3 | 0.686 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 604.751 | 612.825 | -299.376 | 598.751 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 609.468 | 625.616 | -298.734 | 597.468 | 1.284 | 3 | 0.733 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 537.102 | 545.176 | -265.551 | 531.102 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 537.241 | 553.389 | -262.621 | 525.241 | 5.861 | 3 | 0.119 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 517.111 | 525.185 | -255.556 | 511.111 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 519.087 | 535.235 | -253.544 | 507.087 | 4.024 | 3 | 0.259 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 533.963 | 542.037 | -263.982 | 527.963 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 530.360 | 546.508 | -259.180 | 518.360 | 9.603 | 3 | 0.022 |
els | null | 3 | 647.719 | 655.793 | -320.859 | 641.719 | |||
els | random | 6 | 645.463 | 661.611 | -316.732 | 633.463 | 8.255 | 3 | 0.041 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 750.743 | 758.817 | -372.371 | 744.743 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 755.164 | 771.312 | -371.582 | 743.164 | 1.578 | 3 | 0.664 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 631.082 | 639.156 | -312.541 | 625.082 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 634.350 | 650.498 | -311.175 | 622.350 | 2.732 | 3 | 0.435 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 576.967 | 585.041 | -285.483 | 570.967 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 581.760 | 597.908 | -284.880 | 569.760 | 1.207 | 3 | 0.751 |
shs | null | 3 | 740.783 | 748.857 | -367.391 | 734.783 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 744.738 | 760.887 | -366.369 | 732.738 | 2.044 | 3 | 0.563 |
esteem | null | 3 | 383.907 | 391.981 | -188.954 | 377.907 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 388.172 | 404.320 | -188.086 | 376.172 | 1.735 | 3 | 0.629 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 564.158 | 572.232 | -279.079 | 558.158 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 569.612 | 585.760 | -278.806 | 557.612 | 0.545 | 3 | 0.909 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 595.547 | 603.621 | -294.773 | 589.547 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 601.441 | 617.589 | -294.720 | 589.441 | 0.106 | 3 | 0.991 |
mlq | null | 3 | 710.199 | 718.273 | -352.100 | 704.199 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 715.884 | 732.032 | -351.942 | 703.884 | 0.316 | 3 | 0.957 |
empower | null | 3 | 580.407 | 588.481 | -287.204 | 574.407 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 583.918 | 600.066 | -285.959 | 571.918 | 2.489 | 3 | 0.477 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 506.406 | 514.480 | -250.203 | 500.406 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 511.491 | 527.640 | -249.746 | 499.491 | 0.915 | 3 | 0.822 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 539.604 | 547.678 | -266.802 | 533.604 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 539.184 | 555.332 | -263.592 | 527.184 | 6.420 | 3 | 0.093 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 562.849 | 570.923 | -278.424 | 556.849 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 563.093 | 579.241 | -275.547 | 551.093 | 5.756 | 3 | 0.124 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 578.798 | 586.872 | -286.399 | 572.798 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 579.387 | 595.535 | -283.694 | 567.387 | 5.410 | 3 | 0.144 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 572.675 | 580.749 | -283.337 | 566.675 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 570.799 | 586.947 | -279.400 | 558.799 | 7.875 | 3 | 0.049 |
sss | null | 3 | 784.914 | 792.988 | -389.457 | 778.914 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 784.130 | 800.278 | -386.065 | 772.130 | 6.784 | 3 | 0.079 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 35 | 3.14 ± 1.22 | 35 | 3.14 ± 1.22 | 1.000 | 0.000 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 20 | 3.28 ± 1.20 | -0.137 | 19 | 3.48 ± 1.20 | -0.343 | 0.597 | -0.206 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 35 | 17.86 ± 2.69 | 35 | 18.11 ± 2.69 | 0.690 | -0.125 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 20 | 17.52 ± 2.61 | 0.162 | 19 | 18.59 ± 2.60 | -0.232 | 0.204 | -0.520 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 35 | 29.71 ± 5.01 | 35 | 31.17 ± 5.01 | 0.227 | -0.546 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 20 | 30.08 ± 4.44 | -0.137 | 19 | 31.72 ± 4.40 | -0.207 | 0.248 | -0.615 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 35 | 11.94 ± 1.99 | 35 | 12.20 ± 1.99 | 0.591 | -0.246 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 20 | 11.30 ± 1.76 | 0.609 | 19 | 12.06 ± 1.74 | 0.134 | 0.182 | -0.721 |
ras_goal | 1st | 35 | 17.51 ± 3.13 | 35 | 17.66 ± 3.13 | 0.849 | -0.079 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 20 | 16.59 ± 2.83 | 0.508 | 19 | 18.23 ± 2.81 | -0.315 | 0.073 | -0.902 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 35 | 12.89 ± 2.75 | 35 | 13.51 ± 2.75 | 0.342 | -0.474 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 20 | 13.36 ± 2.38 | -0.357 | 19 | 14.57 ± 2.36 | -0.793 | 0.115 | -0.911 |
ras_domination | 1st | 35 | 10.43 ± 2.15 | 35 | 9.60 ± 2.15 | 0.110 | 0.533 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 20 | 9.85 ± 2.05 | 0.373 | 19 | 10.33 ± 2.05 | -0.467 | 0.470 | -0.307 |
symptom | 1st | 35 | 31.00 ± 9.95 | 35 | 29.11 ± 9.95 | 0.430 | 0.495 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 20 | 31.10 ± 8.26 | -0.028 | 19 | 28.48 ± 8.13 | 0.166 | 0.320 | 0.688 |
slof_work | 1st | 35 | 22.51 ± 4.89 | 35 | 22.54 ± 4.89 | 0.981 | -0.014 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 20 | 21.82 ± 4.10 | 0.349 | 19 | 21.29 ± 4.05 | 0.631 | 0.684 | 0.268 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 35 | 25.37 ± 5.96 | 35 | 26.17 ± 5.96 | 0.576 | -0.274 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 20 | 24.35 ± 5.19 | 0.349 | 19 | 25.71 ± 5.13 | 0.157 | 0.412 | -0.466 |
satisfaction | 1st | 35 | 19.26 ± 6.99 | 35 | 22.37 ± 6.99 | 0.066 | -0.802 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 20 | 19.99 ± 6.26 | -0.189 | 19 | 21.84 ± 6.20 | 0.136 | 0.355 | -0.477 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 35 | 10.89 ± 3.79 | 35 | 11.77 ± 3.79 | 0.331 | -0.505 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 20 | 11.33 ± 3.25 | -0.254 | 19 | 11.08 ± 3.21 | 0.397 | 0.806 | 0.146 |
mhc_social | 1st | 35 | 15.37 ± 5.70 | 35 | 14.86 ± 5.70 | 0.707 | 0.174 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 20 | 16.40 ± 5.02 | -0.348 | 19 | 14.32 ± 4.97 | 0.182 | 0.197 | 0.704 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 35 | 21.94 ± 6.42 | 35 | 22.83 ± 6.42 | 0.566 | -0.265 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 20 | 22.54 ± 5.66 | -0.178 | 19 | 21.76 ± 5.61 | 0.320 | 0.668 | 0.232 |
resilisnce | 1st | 35 | 16.26 ± 4.32 | 35 | 17.00 ± 4.32 | 0.474 | -0.316 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 20 | 16.44 ± 3.84 | -0.077 | 19 | 17.50 ± 3.81 | -0.213 | 0.388 | -0.452 |
social_provision | 1st | 35 | 13.26 ± 3.00 | 35 | 14.17 ± 3.00 | 0.206 | -0.498 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 20 | 12.34 ± 2.75 | 0.502 | 19 | 14.09 ± 2.73 | 0.042 | 0.048 | -0.959 |
els_value_living | 1st | 35 | 16.66 ± 2.93 | 35 | 18.00 ± 2.93 | 0.058 | -0.917 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 20 | 16.93 ± 2.56 | -0.187 | 19 | 18.05 ± 2.53 | -0.036 | 0.171 | -0.766 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 35 | 11.89 ± 3.04 | 35 | 13.91 ± 3.04 | 0.007 | -1.279 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 20 | 12.78 ± 2.68 | -0.567 | 19 | 13.88 ± 2.66 | 0.018 | 0.201 | -0.694 |
els | 1st | 35 | 28.54 ± 5.34 | 35 | 31.91 ± 5.34 | 0.010 | -1.353 | ||
els | 2nd | 20 | 29.69 ± 4.59 | -0.461 | 19 | 31.95 ± 4.54 | -0.016 | 0.125 | -0.907 |
social_connect | 1st | 35 | 27.74 ± 9.32 | 35 | 25.77 ± 9.32 | 0.379 | 0.537 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 20 | 28.53 ± 7.78 | -0.214 | 19 | 25.67 ± 7.66 | 0.028 | 0.251 | 0.778 |
shs_agency | 1st | 35 | 13.89 ± 4.93 | 35 | 15.29 ± 4.93 | 0.239 | -0.556 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 20 | 14.16 ± 4.33 | -0.110 | 19 | 15.97 ± 4.29 | -0.272 | 0.193 | -0.718 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 35 | 16.23 ± 3.93 | 35 | 17.17 ± 3.93 | 0.319 | -0.492 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 20 | 16.57 ± 3.41 | -0.179 | 19 | 17.11 ± 3.38 | 0.030 | 0.620 | -0.282 |
shs | 1st | 35 | 30.11 ± 8.34 | 35 | 32.46 ± 8.34 | 0.244 | -0.585 | ||
shs | 2nd | 20 | 30.74 ± 7.22 | -0.156 | 19 | 33.10 ± 7.14 | -0.161 | 0.307 | -0.590 |
esteem | 1st | 35 | 12.86 ± 1.40 | 35 | 12.54 ± 1.40 | 0.350 | 0.259 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 20 | 13.01 ± 1.40 | -0.130 | 19 | 12.82 ± 1.40 | -0.229 | 0.665 | 0.160 |
mlq_search | 1st | 35 | 14.80 ± 3.42 | 35 | 15.03 ± 3.42 | 0.781 | -0.103 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 20 | 14.42 ± 3.19 | 0.172 | 19 | 14.99 ± 3.17 | 0.015 | 0.572 | -0.260 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 35 | 13.51 ± 4.05 | 35 | 13.69 ± 4.05 | 0.860 | -0.071 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 20 | 13.39 ± 3.69 | 0.051 | 19 | 13.76 ± 3.67 | -0.029 | 0.758 | -0.150 |
mlq | 1st | 35 | 28.31 ± 6.80 | 35 | 28.71 ± 6.80 | 0.806 | -0.096 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 20 | 27.80 ± 6.24 | 0.123 | 19 | 28.74 ± 6.20 | -0.007 | 0.638 | -0.225 |
empower | 1st | 35 | 19.11 ± 4.02 | 35 | 20.09 ± 4.02 | 0.315 | -0.515 | ||
empower | 2nd | 20 | 18.85 ± 3.46 | 0.138 | 19 | 19.38 ± 3.42 | 0.372 | 0.632 | -0.281 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 35 | 14.31 ± 2.54 | 35 | 14.89 ± 2.54 | 0.349 | -0.305 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 20 | 14.49 ± 2.44 | -0.092 | 19 | 14.76 ± 2.44 | 0.069 | 0.731 | -0.144 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 35 | 12.26 ± 3.18 | 35 | 10.40 ± 3.18 | 0.017 | 1.135 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 20 | 11.74 ± 2.80 | 0.317 | 19 | 10.81 ± 2.77 | -0.252 | 0.301 | 0.566 |
sss_affective | 1st | 35 | 10.57 ± 3.73 | 35 | 9.43 ± 3.73 | 0.204 | 0.699 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 20 | 10.77 ± 3.17 | -0.124 | 19 | 8.57 ± 3.13 | 0.526 | 0.031 | 1.349 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 35 | 10.49 ± 3.78 | 35 | 8.91 ± 3.78 | 0.086 | 0.778 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 20 | 10.18 ± 3.35 | 0.153 | 19 | 8.19 ± 3.32 | 0.360 | 0.066 | 0.985 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 35 | 8.66 ± 3.92 | 35 | 7.89 ± 3.92 | 0.413 | 0.469 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 20 | 9.68 ± 3.31 | -0.621 | 19 | 7.11 ± 3.26 | 0.474 | 0.016 | 1.564 |
sss | 1st | 35 | 29.71 ± 10.65 | 35 | 26.23 ± 10.65 | 0.175 | 0.831 | ||
sss | 2nd | 20 | 30.73 ± 8.88 | -0.243 | 19 | 23.93 ± 8.75 | 0.548 | 0.018 | 1.623 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(97.32) = 0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.58 to 0.58)
2st
t(104.75) = 0.53, p = 0.597, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.97)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(94.09) = 0.40, p = 0.690, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.53)
2st
t(104.81) = 1.28, p = 0.204, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.72)
ras_confidence
1st
t(79.93) = 1.22, p = 0.227, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.93 to 3.84)
2st
t(103.61) = 1.16, p = 0.248, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-1.16 to 4.45)
ras_willingness
1st
t(79.52) = 0.54, p = 0.591, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.69 to 1.21)
2st
t(103.38) = 1.34, p = 0.182, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.87)
ras_goal
1st
t(82.35) = 0.19, p = 0.849, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.35 to 1.63)
2st
t(104.54) = 1.81, p = 0.073, Cohen d = -0.90, 95% CI (-0.16 to 3.43)
ras_reliance
1st
t(77.55) = 0.96, p = 0.342, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.94)
2st
t(101.73) = 1.59, p = 0.115, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (-0.30 to 2.71)
ras_domination
1st
t(91.32) = -1.61, p = 0.110, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.85 to 0.19)
2st
t(104.90) = 0.73, p = 0.470, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.78)
symptom
1st
t(73.83) = -0.79, p = 0.430, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-6.62 to 2.85)
2st
t(95.16) = -1.00, p = 0.320, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-7.83 to 2.59)
slof_work
1st
t(74.63) = 0.02, p = 0.981, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-2.30 to 2.36)
2st
t(97.10) = -0.41, p = 0.684, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.12 to 2.06)
slof_relationship
1st
t(77.92) = 0.56, p = 0.576, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-2.04 to 3.64)
2st
t(102.11) = 0.82, p = 0.412, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.92 to 4.64)
satisfaction
1st
t(81.07) = 1.86, p = 0.066, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (-0.21 to 6.44)
2st
t(104.14) = 0.93, p = 0.355, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-2.10 to 5.81)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(76.76) = 0.98, p = 0.331, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.92 to 2.69)
2st
t(100.79) = -0.25, p = 0.806, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-2.31 to 1.80)
mhc_social
1st
t(79.21) = -0.38, p = 0.707, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.23 to 2.20)
2st
t(103.17) = -1.30, p = 0.197, Cohen d = 0.70, 95% CI (-5.25 to 1.09)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(79.32) = 0.58, p = 0.566, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-2.17 to 3.94)
2st
t(103.24) = -0.43, p = 0.668, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-4.36 to 2.80)
resilisnce
1st
t(80.52) = 0.72, p = 0.474, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.31 to 2.80)
2st
t(103.91) = 0.87, p = 0.388, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-1.37 to 3.49)
social_provision
1st
t(84.19) = 1.28, p = 0.206, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.51 to 2.34)
2st
t(104.86) = 2.00, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.96, 95% CI (0.02 to 3.50)
els_value_living
1st
t(78.38) = 1.92, p = 0.058, Cohen d = -0.92, 95% CI (-0.05 to 2.73)
2st
t(102.54) = 1.38, p = 0.171, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (-0.49 to 2.74)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(79.36) = 2.79, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -1.28, 95% CI (0.58 to 3.48)
2st
t(103.27) = 1.29, p = 0.201, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.60 to 2.80)
els
1st
t(76.93) = 2.64, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -1.35, 95% CI (0.83 to 5.91)
2st
t(101.00) = 1.55, p = 0.125, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (-0.64 to 5.16)
social_connect
1st
t(74.18) = -0.88, p = 0.379, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-6.41 to 2.47)
2st
t(96.06) = -1.16, p = 0.251, Cohen d = 0.78, 95% CI (-7.77 to 2.05)
shs_agency
1st
t(78.83) = 1.19, p = 0.239, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.95 to 3.75)
2st
t(102.90) = 1.31, p = 0.193, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-0.93 to 4.54)
shs_pathway
1st
t(77.80) = 1.00, p = 0.319, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.93 to 2.81)
2st
t(101.99) = 0.50, p = 0.620, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.62 to 2.70)
shs
1st
t(77.48) = 1.17, p = 0.244, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-1.63 to 6.31)
2st
t(101.65) = 1.03, p = 0.307, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-2.20 to 6.93)
esteem
1st
t(100.60) = -0.94, p = 0.350, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.35)
2st
t(104.79) = -0.43, p = 0.665, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.69)
mlq_search
1st
t(86.36) = 0.28, p = 0.781, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.40 to 1.86)
2st
t(104.99) = 0.57, p = 0.572, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.44 to 2.59)
mlq_presence
1st
t(83.39) = 0.18, p = 0.860, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.75 to 2.10)
2st
t(104.75) = 0.31, p = 0.758, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.97 to 2.70)
mlq
1st
t(84.23) = 0.25, p = 0.806, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-2.83 to 3.63)
2st
t(104.86) = 0.47, p = 0.638, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-3.01 to 4.89)
empower
1st
t(77.02) = 1.01, p = 0.315, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.94 to 2.88)
2st
t(101.12) = 0.48, p = 0.632, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.66 to 2.72)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(92.27) = 0.94, p = 0.349, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.78)
2st
t(104.86) = 0.34, p = 0.731, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.82)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(79.02) = -2.44, p = 0.017, Cohen d = 1.14, 95% CI (-3.37 to -0.34)
2st
t(103.04) = -1.04, p = 0.301, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-2.69 to 0.84)
sss_affective
1st
t(75.76) = -1.28, p = 0.204, Cohen d = 0.70, 95% CI (-2.92 to 0.63)
2st
t(99.28) = -2.18, p = 0.031, Cohen d = 1.35, 95% CI (-4.21 to -0.20)
sss_behavior
1st
t(79.96) = -1.74, p = 0.086, Cohen d = 0.78, 95% CI (-3.37 to 0.23)
2st
t(103.63) = -1.86, p = 0.066, Cohen d = 0.98, 95% CI (-4.11 to 0.13)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(75.05) = -0.82, p = 0.413, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-2.64 to 1.10)
2st
t(97.99) = -2.44, p = 0.016, Cohen d = 1.56, 95% CI (-4.66 to -0.48)
sss
1st
t(74.17) = -1.37, p = 0.175, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-8.56 to 1.59)
2st
t(96.04) = -2.41, p = 0.018, Cohen d = 1.62, 95% CI (-12.41 to -1.20)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(51.97) = 1.14, p = 0.520, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.94)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(49.89) = 0.76, p = 0.898, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.73)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(42.51) = 0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.15 to 2.25)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(42.32) = -0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.81 to 0.53)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(43.67) = 1.00, p = 0.642, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.72)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(41.39) = 2.50, p = 0.033, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (0.20 to 1.90)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(48.28) = 1.52, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.68)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(39.67) = -0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.10 to 1.83)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(40.04) = -1.98, p = 0.110, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-2.54 to 0.03)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(41.56) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-2.33 to 1.41)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(43.05) = -0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-2.99 to 1.94)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(41.02) = -1.25, p = 0.438, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.82 to 0.43)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(42.17) = -0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.42 to 1.35)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(42.22) = -1.01, p = 0.634, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-3.20 to 1.06)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(42.79) = 0.68, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.99 to 1.99)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(44.57) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.23 to 1.08)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(41.78) = 0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.88 to 0.99)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(42.24) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.98)
els
1st vs 2st
t(41.10) = 0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.56 to 1.64)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(39.83) = -0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.47 to 2.27)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(41.99) = 0.86, p = 0.788, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.92 to 2.29)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(41.51) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.17)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(41.36) = 0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.92 to 3.21)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(54.48) = 0.77, p = 0.891, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.00)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(45.66) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.42 to 1.35)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(44.17) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.46 to 1.60)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(44.59) = 0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-2.59 to 2.65)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(41.14) = -1.17, p = 0.495, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.91 to 0.51)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(48.82) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.02)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(42.08) = 0.80, p = 0.858, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.46)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(40.56) = -1.65, p = 0.213, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.91 to 0.19)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(42.53) = -1.14, p = 0.519, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.01 to 0.56)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(40.23) = -1.49, p = 0.290, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.84 to 0.28)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(39.83) = -1.72, p = 0.188, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-5.01 to 0.41)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(50.92) = 0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.73)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(48.99) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.90)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(42.14) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.29 to 2.03)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(41.96) = -1.98, p = 0.109, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-1.29 to 0.01)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(43.22) = -1.66, p = 0.208, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-2.04 to 0.20)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(41.10) = 1.15, p = 0.511, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.30)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(47.51) = -1.24, p = 0.440, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.52 to 0.36)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(39.49) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.30 to 2.51)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(39.84) = -1.12, p = 0.538, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.95 to 0.56)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(41.26) = -1.13, p = 0.530, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-2.85 to 0.80)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(42.65) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.67 to 3.14)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(40.76) = 0.82, p = 0.833, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.54)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(41.83) = 1.13, p = 0.532, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.86)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(41.87) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.49 to 2.67)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(42.41) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.64)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(44.06) = -1.65, p = 0.213, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-2.05 to 0.21)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(41.47) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.19)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(41.89) = 1.84, p = 0.146, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.89)
els
1st vs 2st
t(40.83) = 1.49, p = 0.289, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.71)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(39.65) = 0.69, p = 0.994, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.53 to 3.10)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(41.66) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.29 to 1.85)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(41.21) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.54)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(41.07) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.88 to 3.13)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(53.26) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.87)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(45.07) = -0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.74 to 0.97)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(43.69) = -0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.61 to 1.37)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(44.08) = -0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-3.07 to 2.05)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(40.87) = -0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.44 to 0.92)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(48.00) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.30)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(41.74) = -1.03, p = 0.621, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.54 to 0.50)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(40.33) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.23)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(42.16) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.94)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(40.02) = 2.00, p = 0.106, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.01 to 2.05)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(39.64) = 0.78, p = 0.881, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.62 to 3.66)